Currently, a Pakistani can become prime minister only twice. A two-term prime minister is debarred from becoming prime minister for a third-term. How stingy According to a news, the government intends to remove the third time restriction. It is a pleasant news. But it has an irrational aspect. One can't help asking the government: "What is the rational behind its third-term? Why not a third-term be succeeded by a fourth-term and a fourth-term succeeded by a fifth-term so on ad infinitum?" Logically, one must have the right to capture prime ministership as many times as one is capable of capturing it. A numerical restriction would be an assassination of one's political capabilities. There is no upper age restriction for becoming a prime minister. One can become a prime minister even when one is a thousand years old. When there is no upper age limit for prime ministership then logically there should be no term limit as well. One is curious to know why was the third-term restriction imposed? Did the imposers believe that on the last day of his second-term, a prime minister becomes mentally retarded? Or did they believe that if someone remains prime minister for two-terms, he becomes too cunning and shrewd? If given a third-term, he would use his two-term experience more recklessly for his personal gains than ever before? One simply wonders Whether one is entitled to be prime minister twice or more than twice is something absolutely irrelevant. What is of real significance is the quality of a prime minister's performance. And this quality only the masses are competent to assess. The government intends to grant a third-term to anyone who has already been prime minister twice. The government does not intend to evaluate the quality of the fellow's performance. It is something extremely regrettable. Here is an alternative suggestion. At the end of the first year of the first-term of a prime minister, the masses should be asked to give their judgement about his performance. If the masses denounce him then the prime minister should be ordered to pack up and spend the rest of his term in his bedroom. According to our history, if a prime minister makes the life of the masses a veritable hell during his entire first-term, he is fully entitled to enjoy a second-term and make the masses more miserable. The term system must be abolished. The vaccum should be filled with a quality-performance system. The change must bring about a glorious revolution. As things are, one can become prime minister only twice. But there is no such restriction on a voter. He is entitled to keep on casting his vote into the ballot box till he is himself cast into his coffin. Casting his vote into the ballot box is a great enjoyment for our voter. But this is the only enjoyment which our democracy has gifted to the voter. Once the voting is over and a new government is in power, the voter's economic misery begins. Our democracy is obliged to perform only two functions. Its first obligation is to confer extreme affluence on the elected rulers and its second obligation is to inflict extreme indigence on the masses. So far, almost all our democracies have fulfilled their obligations most effectively. Obviously, we desperately need a different sort of democracy. But only a revolution can bring about such a change. If in Pakistan an Islamic constitution was written, it would guarantee the basic needs of life to all the citizens. The rulers would have only one power. It would be the power to serve the masses. They would have absolutely no power to serve themselves. If ever such a constitution became operational, the world would be stunned. And the masses of the poor countries would set their constitutions ablaze. A constitution which does not guarantee subsistence to its citizens is a constitution borrowed from the jungle. The jungle has a mono-clausal constitution. It proclaims: "If a denizen of the jungle cannot survive on its own, it is constitutionally free to go to hell." The writer is an academic.